Skip to main content
Glama

Statbank Md

by io.github.pipeworx-io

AI Visibility Check

ai_visibility_check
Read-onlyIdempotent

Probe one or more LLMs for what they know about a business / brand / product / topic and score visibility (0-100) per model. Default model is Workers AI Llama-3.3-70b (free); pass _apiKey to also probe Anthropic (BYO key — you pay Anthropic directly for those calls). Returns per-model {score, confidence, signals, raw_response} + a combined view. Useful for AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entityYesThe thing to ask about. Brand/business name, product name, person, or topic. E.g. "Pipeworx", "OpenInvoice", "Acme Corp pricing".
modelsNoWhich models to probe. Supported: "workers-ai" (free default), "anthropic" (requires _apiKey). Omit for just workers-ai.
_apiKeyNoOptional Anthropic API key (sk-ant-...) — only needed if "anthropic" is in models. Passed straight through to api.anthropic.com.
contextNoOptional: a phrase locating the entity (e.g. "Boston restaurant", "B2B SaaS"). Helps disambiguate common names.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral details: the default model is free, probing Anthropic requires a BYO key with direct payment, and the return format includes per-model score/confidence/signals. This goes beyond annotations, though rate limits or data persistence are not covered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary function, then model-specific details, then use cases. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description compensates by specifying the per-model return structure ({score, confidence, signals, raw_response} plus combined view) and listing applicable use cases. It could add guidance on interpreting scores, but given annotations handle safety, the description is largely complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces `_apiKey` usage (pass to also probe Anthropic) and mentions the default model for `models`, but adds little beyond schema definitions for `entity` and `context`. Overall marginal added meaning, still meeting the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool probes LLMs for knowledge about a business/brand/product/topic and scores visibility 0-100 per model. The verb 'probe' and resource are specific, and it distinguishes itself from similar siblings like scan_competitor_ai_presence by focusing on generic visibility rather than competitor-specific scans.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides concrete use cases (AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring) and explains the default model and how to add Anthropic via `_apiKey`. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, preventing a top score.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Statbank Md toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical in scope, and the prediction-market tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk) share similar functions. While some tools are distinct, the boundaries between many are unclear.

Naming Consistency2/5

Names mix product-like identifiers (ask_pipeworx, deep_research), descriptive nouns (entity_profile, subjects), and inconsistent verb forms (query_table, resolve_entity, scan_competitor_ai_presence). No consistent verb_noun pattern is maintained across the set.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, the server is overpopulated relative to its apparent purpose. The name 'Statbank Md' suggests a narrow statistical service, but only 3 tools are Statbank-specific; the rest form a sprawling general-purpose data toolkit. The count is far beyond what the core function needs.

Completeness3/5

For the Statbank subset, the surface is complete (browse subjects, get metadata, query data). As a general data research suite, it covers many domains (SEC, FDA, economics, prediction markets) but lacks execution/trading tools for prediction markets and has no bulk data export or analytics beyond excerpts. Notable gaps exist but many core workflows are covered.

Resources